?Takeaway: The Americans with Disabilities Act protects workers with mental illnesses, such as depression and anxiety. Nevertheless, an employer can discipline misconduct by such a worker, even if the misconduct arises from the employee’s condition and their frustration with seeking accommodations for it.
?The termination of a worker with depression for his angry outburst was not unlawful discrimination, the 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals recently decided.
The plaintiff worked for Deere & Co., better known as John Deere, for more than 30 years. Beginning in 2016, John Deere gave the plaintiff Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) leave and other medical leave to accommodate his anxiety and depression. In late 2018, the plaintiff took nearly four months of medical leave and returned to work in March 2019. In his first two months back from work, the plaintiff was absent 12 more days for vacation and sickness.
In May 2019, after the plaintiff’s supervisor declined his vacation request, the plaintiff requested every Friday off through the winter. That June, the plaintiff’s supervisor and an HR representative issued a warning to the plaintiff for his excessive unplanned and unexcused absences. The warning also acknowledged that the plaintiff had been approved for FMLA leave in the past and encouraged him to sign up for it again if needed.
At one point, the plaintiff told his supervisor that he felt like putting a gun to his head every morning. In response, the company attempted to arrange for the plaintiff to meet with an occupational health physician and a psychiatrist, but that did not happen because of a scheduling conflict. The HR manager asked the plaintiff to take paid leave and get psychiatric and fitness-for-duty evaluations before returning to work.
The plaintiff returned without restrictions in late September. The HR manager met with him and offered to sit in on any discussions with his supervisor, which the plaintiff declined. She also asked the plaintiff if he needed anything to support his transition back to work, and he did not ask for any accommodation.
After his return, the plaintiff received critical feedback from his supervisor. On Oct. 8, 2019, the plaintiff asked for a meeting with his supervisor. At that meeting, the plaintiff raised his voice and told his supervisor he would fight him to the end on this, and it would not turn out well for one of them. Both men contacted HR, and the plaintiff told the HR representative he did not regret what he said.
The HR representative and HR manager consulted with the HR operation lead, who approved the representative’s recommendation to fire the plaintiff. The next morning, the HR manager terminated the plaintiff over the telephone while he was at work. The plaintiff was escorted from the premises, and later that day, a county deputy advised him not to contact the supervisor or visit his home.
The plaintiff sued John Deere for failure to accommodate his disability, disability discrimination, age discrimination, harassment and retaliation under Iowa law. The district court granted summary judgment to the company on all claims, and the plaintiff appealed the decision to the 8th Circuit.
Appeals Court
The appeals court considered whether the plaintiff had presented any evidence of failure to accommodate or any connection between his discharge and his disability. It found the plaintiff never requested any accommodation at the relevant time. When he returned to work in September 2019, he was cleared of all restrictions and did not ask for anything. Thus, he could not show that John Deere failed or refused to grant him an accommodation.
The plaintiff claimed his discharge was discriminatory because the company should have investigated the Oct. 8 incident further before firing him. But he could not show that any company policy required additional investigation or that the failure to investigate was discriminatory. While the plaintiff argued that he had no prior disciplinary history, John Deere’s records showed he had a history of difficulty with other employees. As a result, the plaintiff could argue only that he disagreed with the company’s decision as being overly harsh, but could not show it was pretext for discrimination.
The 8th Circuit upheld the district court’s dismissal of the claims at summary judgment.
Winters v. Deere & Co., 8th Cir., No. 22-1035 (March 23, 2023).
Jeffrey Rhodes is an attorney with McInroy, Rigby & Rhodes LLP in Arlington, Va.
